KINGSMAN: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE | Sep 22, 2017 | Trailer on page 15

[Krissykins]

Entertainment Weekly: "campy lazy. Sequelitis." 

[filmlover]

2 minutes ago, filmnerdjamie said:

I think we should have learned by now not to take tracking to heart. Like forever ago, not to treat it as the Gospel.

$40-45M sounds accurate for Blade Runner though, all things considered (I saw three movies over the weekend and the BR2049 trailer was before all of them, so the studio isn't holding back in terms of getting awareness out there). As @Zakiyyah6 said, it all depends on how that final stretch the week before it opens as to where it will end up.

[marveldcfox]

1 minute ago, Krissykins said:

Robbie Collin from the Telegraph called it the most bored he's been all year. (twitter)

 

Empire gave it 4/5 although a step down from first. 

It didn't really need a sequel...I don't think there was any fervour so even if it is good...folks will still be bored.

[Zakiyyah6]

Empire gives almost everything good reviews.

[marveldcfox]

Damn....looks like it will end up 40-60% range...Valerian like. 

 

Now you know why Vaughn doesn't do sequels generally. Even he knows that he can't top what he has done before. This was just a paycheck movie. 

 

Cameron remains king of sequels.

Edited September 18, 2017 by marveldcfox

[marveldcfox]

2 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Empire gives almost everything good reviews.

especially if a british director is involved OR a director does some kind of Exclusive conference/interview with them.

[Krissykins]

Looks like website critics are being kinder than the big prints/trades, 

[Alli]

2 minutes ago, marveldcfox said:

Damn....looks like it will end up 40-60% range...Valerian like. 

 

Now you know why Vaughn doesn't do sequels generally. Even he knows that he can't top what he has done before. This was just a paycheck movie. 

 

Cameron remains king of sequels.

huh? it's at 92% on RT

[Krissykins]

Entertainment Weekly are brutal.

 

Theyll have your movie on the cover and they'll slate it in the review the same issue lol. 

[Fancyarcher]

2 minutes ago, marveldcfox said:

Damn....looks like it will end up 40-60% range...Valerian like. 

 

Now you know why Vaughn doesn't do sequels generally. Even he knows that he can't top what he has done before. This was just a paycheck movie. 

 

Cameron remains king of sequels.

Um what? Current reviews aren't great, but they aren't that bad either. You don't always have to be so negative and full of doom all the time anyway.  

[ZattMurdock]

4 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

I will never understand the critical reaction to Guardians of the Galaxy 2. I thought it was an infinitely superior movie. 

Because it is. 

[marveldcfox]

One thing is confirmed....Vaughn is a big misogynist. First he did something unholy on the sets of xmen:first class. Then that Princess joke at the end of Kingsman. And now another joke which almost ruins this movie...some will find it hilarious...but in the present world that we are living in...it may piss off many and automatically hate or deride this film.

[Zakiyyah6]

It only has 11 reviews. Lets see where it is when it has 50 reviews or more importantly a 100 reviews. I hope it's reviews are decent overall.

[marveldcfox]

3 minutes ago, iJackSparrow said:

Because it is. 

I disagree. It was nothing but CG fest. None of the action or spectacle was anywhere as well directed as first one. Also, the first one felt like a universe and you could see people on all planets. This one was mostly barren planets and some nonsense CG monsters. It's a fun movie but a 7/10. Guardians was a 9/10.

 

Spiderman was 10/10 though. 

 

Hopefully thor 3 delivers. 

Edited September 18, 2017 by marveldcfox

[Deja23]

It's expected that it might not top the first movie. Adding a bunch of new characters isn't always a great way to keep things fresh. I still think it'll do well domestically, hopefully increasing from the first one and agree that it'll do much better OS with bigger action sequences. 

[TalismanRing]

Kingsman 1 reviews were solid not great

 

74%: Average Rating: 6.7/10

66%: Average Rating: 6.1/10 (Top critics)

 

 

[Cmasterclay]

I actually enjoyed the first one quite a lot. But I'm not gonna lie - this shit looked borrrrrring from the first trailer

[Fancyarcher]

4 minutes ago, marveldcfox said:

I disagree. It was nothing but CG fest. None of the action or spectacle was anywhere as well directed as first one. Also, the first one felt like a universe and you could see people on all planets. This one was mostly barren planets and some nonsense CG monsters. 

Guardians of The Galaxy Vol 2 wasn't just a CGI fest though. It had a lot more character moments then the first, and the ending actually got me teary-eyed. It did what any good sequel did. It expanded on the themes of the first, and took those themes and the story into different enough directions, managing to work well at the same time. It was a good sequel. 

Edited September 18, 2017 by Fancyarcher

[somebody85]

I was going to say enjoy that 90 while it lasts because looking at that average score it's going to drop quick.....now down to 79%.

So the films more dumb forgettable fun in a year where a lot of movies could be labeled that? Okay...don't know why critics are blaming the film for that.

[marveldcfox]

This is missing a hook to get audience into the theatre. Colin firth as action hero was the hook in first one! Here....nothing. Just bigger is better syndrome.